Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.

Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.

Former employees of Plantation attorney David J. Stern agreed to a preliminary $502,000 settlement after he fired them without giving the required 60-day notice as business at his foreclosure law firm began to dry up.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found the settlement “sufficiently fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests” of the former workers, according to a preliminary order. There will be a June 8 final hearing.

Workers in the class-action settlement now have until May 3 to opt out of the settlement, while papers in support of it should be filed by May 29.

Harris County Texas, which includes the city of Houston, won a bid to join a group lawsuit seeking damages from the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Stewart Title Co.

U.S. District Judge Reed C. O’Connor allowed Harris and nearby Brazoria County (66583MF) to enter the case that could result in payouts of a much as $10 billion for all Texas counties, according to court papers filed by the plaintiffs.

Nueces County could join a group of Texas counties suing Bank of America and a related corporation over unpaid courthouse filing fees.

Nationwide, counties are claiming that a mortgage database created by banks is cheating the counties out of billions of dollars in filing fees.

Dallas County is leading the charge with a class-action suit against the bank and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins told NPR his county has lost about $100 billion in filing fees.

We know for a fact and the government knows for a fact that if MERS is on your documents, a cloud also exists.

Their “quick fix” might come as simple as accepting a modification, principal reduction or a refi, to cover this all up and creating new paper.

If any of your new docs have MERS or a like, what have you done again?

Statesman-

The ownership of tens of thousands of Central Texas home loans could be in question because of the actions of a national private registry that officials say has sidestepped the filing of proper documents with county clerks, the American-Statesman has learned.

The Mortgage Electronic Registration System was created in the 1990s by 3,000 of the nation’s largest lenders to “streamline the mortgage sale process by using e-commerce to replace paperwork,” according to the company’s website.

In recent years, the Virginia-based registry has exploded across the U.S. as mortgages increasingly were bundled and sold as commodities in rapid churn to investors.

The Texas county that includes Houston will ask the state attorney general to investigate suing Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. over unpaid filing fees on behalf of all the counties in Texas, an official said.

“If this is something that affects county government all over the state, why isn’t the state attorney general pursuing it?” Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said in an interview today. Emmett is a member of the Harris County Commissioners Court and the highest elected official of the county.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed but lately there is a PR move supporting MERS…but those moves will not help once every county in the US wakes up and begins to sue the machine.

Bloomberg-

Attorneys for the Texas county that includes Houston will seek permission Tuesday to hire outside counsel to sue Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. over unpaid mortgage-filing fees.

The plan was posted today on the agenda for the Harris County Commissioners Court, the governing body for the county. County attorneys will hire the same law firm, Malouf & Nockels, that handled a similar lawsuit filed by Dallas last month, County Attorney Vince Ryan said in an interview today.

The Dallas County District Attorney’s lawsuit claimed Merscorp Inc.’s MERS, which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, cheated the county out of tens of millions of dollars in uncollected filing fees. MERS tracks servicing rights and ownership interests …

Again, this is what I’ve been waiting for. As Professor Peterson says, “This case is scary because if Dallas wins then there are a lot of other counties around the country that are going to follow.” … And follow they will.

I already see them lining up one by one. You see just because you can develop a system and input data, doesn’t mean it relieves you from any responsibility of some 67+ million “errors”. They knew what they had from its inception.

BLOOMBERG-

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) is among a group of lenders that may face a wave of new lawsuits claiming the system they’ve used for more than a decade to register mortgages cheated cash-strapped counties out of millions of dollars.

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins said state attorneys general and county officials across the U.S. have expressed interest in his lawsuit against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and Bank of America, filed in Texas state court on Sept. 21. Dallas County could be owed as much as $100 million in filing fees, he said.

Listen up carefully because this is what we’ve been waiting for. Only wished all shareholders were named but it’s all about strategy and taking one bite at a time!

I have posted about this doctrine HERE and HERE in hopes someone would pick up on this.

Abigail C. Field-

Dallas County has just filed this complaint seeking billions from Bank of America for the 285,000+ MERS documents recorded in the the Dallas County land records. Dallas calls MERS a fraud by design, and says MERS’s shareholders should be liable for MERS has done.

The complaint explains that in recorded mortgages and other documents, MERS claims to be a “beneficiary”, “mortgagee” and “grantee”, but that MERS is none of those things under the law of Texas for the past 100 years. As a result, the complaint says, all those documents are false. Texas law prohibits using a document with the “knowledge that the document is a fraudulent court record or fraudulent lien or claim against real…property or an interest in real…property”

III. AGENCY AND CORPORATE VEIL/ALTER-EGO 10. At all times material hereto, each Defendant was acting by and through its actual, apparent, ostensible, or by estoppel agents and/or employees.

11. Plaintiff moves the Court pierce the MERSCORP and MERS corporate veils and impose liability upon Defendants Stewart and BOA as shareholders in MERSCORP for the activities of MERSCORP and MERS alleged herein. Recognizing the corporate existence of MERSCORP and MERS separate from their shareholders, including Stewart and BOA, would cause an inequitable result or injustice, or would be a cloak for fraud or illegality. MERSCORP and MERS were undercapitalized in light of the nature and risk of their business. The corporate fiction is being used to justify wrongs, as a means of perpetrating fraud, as a mere tool or business conduit for others, as a means of evading existing legal obligations, to perpetrate monopoly and unlawfully gain monopolistic control over the real property recording system in the State of Texas, and to circumvent statutory obligations.

A federal magistrate in Miami has recommended that former employees of DJSP Enterprises, the legal processing arm of Plantation attorney David J.Stern’s once-powerful foreclosure law firm, be given class action status to sue Stern and his affiliates for violating federal labor laws.

The suit, filed on behalf of four employees but which could affect at least 700, claims workers were fired last fall without the 60 days notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act. The action seeks back pay and benefits.

Plaintiffs argue that WARN Act liability is imputed to Stern and DJSPA under the single employer test. Stern and DJSPA contend that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege all the elements of the single employer test.

Two or more affiliated businesses which constitute a “single employer” may be held jointly and severally liable for violations of the WARN Act. Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 478 (3d Cir. 2001). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations issued under the WARN Act provide that two or more affiliated businesses may be considered a single business enterprise for WARN Act purposes. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2). The regulations provide a five-factor balancing test to assess whether affiliated businesses constitute a “single employer,” which would subject them to joint liability under the WARN Act. See Pearson, 247 F.3d at 478.

The five DOL factors are as follows: (1) common ownership, (2) common directors and/or officers, (3) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, (4) dependency of operations, and (5) de facto exercise of control. Id. at 487– 490; 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2).

Plaintiffs adequately allege the five elements of the single employer test.

Alter Ego – Piercing the Corporate Veil of DJSP BVI

99. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, repeat and reallege
the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

100. As alleged above, at all relevant times herein, DJSP BVI, by its complete exercise of
dominion and control, is the alter ego of DJSP FL, DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries
DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing, which constitute a single employer.
Indeed, as set forth above, there is a high interdependency of operations; there is commonality
between management, directors and officers; there is a consolidation of financial, strategic, legal
and human resources operations; and, at all relevant times, DJSP BVI has used and continued to
use DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries and the assets of these entities for its own
purposes.

COUNT II

Alter Ego – Stern

103. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, repeat and reallege
the allegations in paragraphs one through eighty-five (1-85) as if fully restated herein.

104. As alleged above, at all relevant times herein Stern, by his complete exercise of dominion
and control over said entities, is the alter ego of DJSPA, DJSP BVI, DJSP FL, DAL Group and
its operating subsidiaries DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing. The
foregoing entities combine to constitute a single employer, all under the direction and control of
Stern personally. Indeed, as set forth above, there is a high interdependency of operations; there
is commonality between management, directors and officers; there is a consolidation of financial,
strategic, legal and human resources operations; and, at all relevant times, Stern has used and
continued to use DJSPA, DJSP BVI, DJSP FL, DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries and the
assets of these entities for his own purposes.

THIS IS NOT Intended to Be Construed or Relied upon as COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE—Readers are urged to obtain competent legal representation to review their facts. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. I’m trying to gather a few things in order for research…that’s all.

This is very similar to the notion of piercing the corporate veil (aside from certain technical distinctions that are being ignored for the purpose of this discussion). Owners of corporations (i.e., its shareholders) are generally not personally liable for debts, losses and liabilities of the business itself, because of limited liability. However, if those owners have acted in a way where their business is really just a shell, and not an entirely separate legal entity, a court may decide that the business is simply an alter ego, meaning the owners should be held personally liable because of their wrongful acts.

There are many things that a court will look at in determining whether alter ego liability should be applied. Typical factors include (but are not limited to) whether the company kept its own records, whether there were shares (for a corporation) or units (for an LLC) that were actually issued, whether the owners co-mingled their finances with the business entity, whether there were actually corporate directors or LLC managers running the business, how legal formalities were followed and whether the owners used the business for personal purposes. It is often a case-by-case situation, and the key here is that you should take every precaution to run your business in full compliance with the legally required formalities and use the business in a proper way in order to avoid such alter ego liability.

Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

Successor liability claims are often paired with alleged violations under a state law adaptation or adoption of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”),5such as the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“DUFTA”). Some typical factual scenarios that give rise to a successor liability claim mirror those for a claim under UFTA. For instance, a violation of DUFTA by transferring the assets of company A into company B to avoid liability, while the successor company B is a mere continuation of company A, as all of the assets were transferred, and company B retained the same management as company A, could trigger both exceptions three and four noted above as well as a fraudulent conveyance claim. See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 1305.

DUFTA finds a fraudulent conveyance if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation with “intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor;” or “[w]ithout receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation.” DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6 §§ 1304(a)(2) and 1305(a); see also In re Hechinger Inc. Co. of Del., 327 B.R. 537, 551 (D. Del. 2005); China Res. Prods. (U.S.A.) v. Fayda Int’l, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 856, 863 (D. Del. 1994); In re MDIP, Inc., 332 B.R. 129, 132 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). The debtor must also be engaged or about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were “unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction,” or intended, had a belief, or should have believed, that the debtor would “incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.” In re MDIP, Inc., 332 B.R. at 132. If a creditor prevails on a claim under the DUFTA, the statute empowers the Court to appoint a receiver to take charge of the transferred asset or other property of the transferee. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6 § 1307(a).

Notably, intent under DUFTA can be found if the transfer or obligation was to an insider, if the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer, the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets, the debtor removed or concealed assets, the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred, or the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 6 § 1304(b). All of these facts, if present, would be useful in framing a successor liability claim as well.

A doctrine of law which disregards the principle of limited liability enjoyed by a corporate entity when it is proven that, in fact, no separate identity of the individual and corporation exists. The alter ego principle may also apply to relationships between corporate entities and their subsidiaries.

Litigants often invoke the alter ego doctrine but are rarely successful. Still, under the proper circumstances, it can be a powerful and effective equitable device for litigants before and after judgment.

Where the Creditor Directs Management of an Affiliated Transferee. Where the borrower has transferred title to a different entity controlled by the lender (or lenders, as the use of such entities at foreclosure is common in the participation setting), liability for an (unanticipated) uninsured loss often flows upward to the controlling parties anyway. Lender liability, alter-ego and other theories may be applied. See § (K)(1), infra (use of affiliates and environmental liability). For a discussion of the liability of the affiliated secured lender, see Talley, § XIII(A)(3), supra.

Piercing the corporate veil in business is when a corporation performs an act through their officers or board of directors in good faith, so the company isn’t doing the deed themselves. In other words piercing the corporate veil has to do with the corporation through it’s officers and through the board of directors NOT acting in compliance with the corporation articles of incorporation and corporate bylaws require. And when they do that, they do that at the peril of the officers and the board of directors.